The intention of this project is to rewrite some of Miles' papers to include apps and animations in them to demonstrate the concepts being discussed. I have a good framework in place that allows multiple apps to be used on a single page. The main work is creating the scenes for each app. Since I built this framework to demonstrate stacked spins, I already have useful objects for that and should be able to make good progress with those papers. I will then look into incorporating the atomic models used in Atomic Viewer and work on the nuclear papers. I also want to look into Relativity since I already have a working model and just need to fit it into a slightly different framework.

From there you can get to each paper that I have published. There are only two at the moment but it will grow, in time.

Feel free to suggest papers that could be enhanced with animations and apps. Describe what you think the animations should show. Try to keep them simple. We will need complexity some times, but my intention is to show the simple things that help people understand the complex things. But don't let that get in the way of a good idea, either. At least get the ideas down here and I can see what I can do with them. Try to keep each post about a single paper. Long lists of papers will just overwhelm me but a clear, concise idea will get my attention.

Also, if you are at all artistic, then please feel free to comment on style and colors, etc. That is not my strongest area of expertise. I know what I do and don't like, but creating something that I do like is difficult.

Particle StructureNevyn, your particle structure in the first app in your modified MM paper on Charge seemed to show a polar opening at first, but then after a while I think it filled it in. Was that a mistake in the app?

From our discussion in the previous thread, I gather that the B-photons that enter into the poles of particles are moving rather slowly, which is why the single resident photon of the particle is able to run circles at light speed around the B-photons to corral them toward the equator or back to the pole for exiting. Is that how you picture it? Do you think you'd be able to show close-ups of the resident photon running circles around the B-photons? I assume the resident photon would have the entire mass of the particle, which would mean the B-photons would be pushovers for it. Right?

Miles' site still isn't accessible. I emailed him an hour or two ago asking when we can expect it back up.

I am only showing the emission in those papers. No intake photons at all. When it starts, which is only when it comes on screen, the BPhoton starts recording its path. You can see the circular nature of the charge shader behind it and I assume that is what you mean by polar opening. After the BPhoton makes a few revolutions, around 20, the recorded path covers that circle in the shader particles. That is by design. Now that the green path is full(er), you can see the center, which looks sort of like a wide open mouth, that is the polar opening.

If you look closely, you can see what look a bit like tonsils. Watch the BPhoton as it moves through this area and you will see that it always moves in the same direction. It moves straight at the viewer in this view point (looking down the Z axis) and this would tend to push ambient photons in that direction creating through-charge (which I am not modeling in this app).

As far as BPhoton speed goes, no I don't believe that they are moving slowly at all. They are moving at c. The proton does not corral them because it is faster. I actually don't even think that it does corral them. I know Miles has stated that they do, but I don't see how. With a fuzzy idea of stacked spins I could see how the idea might come up, but now that I have SpinSim, it doesn't look like it could work like that.

Nevyn, you seem to be calling the particle's resident photon a B-photon, but you previously said a B-photon has no spin or spin levels. You also previously said a B-photon could be going any speed less than c, I think. The B-photons are defined by Miles as bombarding photons, I believe, which is what the B stands for. So I think you need to get the terms defined here and stick to them. I don't know why you object to B-photons traveling less than c now.

I tried to email Miles yesterday to ask when he thinks his site will be available, but the email didn't reach him. And his site is still inaccessible. Hopefully, someone can get word to or from him soon.

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy with my words there. It is important to realise that the proton is not channeling BPhotons, it is channeling charge photons, which are predominantly in the IR spectrum. These are not BPhotons, they are BPhotons with many spin levels, so a photon. I know Miles, in his early papers, said that charged particles are channeling BPhotons, but later papers make it clear that it is actually IR photons. He had not calculated the average photon yet, when he wrote the early papers, so he talked about BPhotons a lot. He later refined his ideas since he had made other connections between things that affected those earlier ideas.

Another problem, specific to me and the language I use, is that I am often talking in two different nomenclatures at the same time. One is the physics nomenclature and the other is programming nomenclature, specifically, the programming objects that I create to represent the physics objects. I should be more careful with the words I use since you guys have no hope of knowing about the programming objects I create. In this case though, I was talking about the physics BPhoton and its speed.

So, to be clear, I believe that the BPhoton (with no spins) can move slower than c, but this does not affect charged particles because they are channeling charge photons, which are moving at c. Therefore, the charge particle can not corral them inside of itself because of that speed.

I have added a new section to my website and this is a big, but tentative, step for me because it is going to contain my own writing. I plan to formalize some of my ideas into papers and publish them. I have made a start with a paper about spin velocity and I would very much appreciate your criticism. I will let Miles know about it shortly but I wanted your thoughts before I step off the ledge.

I have made some updates to fix issues that Airman found and there is still some work to be done with some of the wording in the intro and outro. It could use a bit of color too, so I will look into that soon.

Yeah, I initially used my multi-app template to build the page, thinking that I would add in a few stacked spins or anything else I could think of that might help. But it kind of turned out more mathematical than I was thinking. I didn't think that it needed any more. I was thinking of adding a new section to the bottom about how to use these equations. Explain how I build stacked spins and how these equations can be used to get the motions and timings correct. That would certainly contain some animations to show the equations in action. I'll give it some more thought. In my mind I had relegated all of that into another paper specifically about building stacked spins.

Another reason I was hesitant to add apps to the page is that I know Miles has trouble using them in his browser. It is important to me that he is able to use the page effectively but at the same time, my apps are what I bring to the table. Yes, this is a venture out into the world of writing my own physics theories, but I still think my apps are what differentiates me at the moment. I feel like I have to walk a fine line. Maybe what I should do is create some GIFs from my apps or even just build them directly.

I tried to improve my intro and outro, but managed to add more to the middle and I realised why angles are inverted to distances so I changed the end. Although, I'm not real happy with the wording in that last paragraph. I'll probably change it again. I am struggling with that intro though. Not sure what to put up there.

.- If you're back in draft mode, I want a redo read too. - In all honesty, I'm still in the trying to understand it well enough to finish the first reading. - I see you are describing light speed motion that reveals the limits of curvature and curved motion. - The point of the ratios is still lost on me. - Oh, by the way, I would suggest getting rid of all those decimal place numbers - the velocity numbers, not the ratios; carrying 7 or 8 digits everywhere is a poor practice that smacks of numerology. -Looks great Nevyn!.

Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:45 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Added to Oh, by the way)

If you don't see what those ratios are all about then I have failed to explain that properly. I'll have another look over it and see if I can shine some light on it. It is a bit trickier than the previous section where it is pretty much straight equation building. The ratios are about relationships between spin levels, but I don't want to explain it here as it is needed in the paper.

Can we still call it a paper if it is being served online? Should we start calling them screens?

I don't think I agree about the decimal places though. I am only using 3 and the data I generated had a lot more. I figured 3 was enough to show that they are not integer values but I did check to see if the same ratios came out if I used them as integers and they did, at least to 3 decimal places.

A few more updates, including a new intro written by Airman and massaged into my own words, but only slightly. Huge thanks for that. I also added an abstract at the top explaining the purpose of the paper and a footer to explain my coining of the term Angle Velocity.

. For discussion purposes only.- I think I understand the ratios now. This graph is not included as a recommended image for your Intertoob Virtual Paper Screen, I just plotted the two velocities to see the curves, so I had no excuse to claim misunderstanding the consecutive value ratios. - I agree. You may wish to be a little more explicit concerning the new Angle Velocity terminology. - QUOTE The two equations are inistricably linked.UNQUOTE. Please change "inistricably" to "inextricably"- Feel free to use any of my words strung together how ever you see fit. I'm happy to help..

Damn, I knew I wasn't spelling that word correctly when I wrote it but forgot to check it and didn't want to lose my train of thought at the time. Thanks.

Your graph is a good idea. I have had thoughts of creating a much larger graph, using more values, because I think this is tied into why you can't keep stacking spins. As the radius gets larger, the curve of that graph changes. It looks more like an e^x graph. My assumption, and I haven't put much work into it yet, is that the point where the graph curves the most, is the point where you can't stack any more spins. It needs a lot more research but that is the impression I have gotten when playing with the angular velocities.

Another update with a rewrite of the outro after rethinking the inverted relationship and some more content in the middle dealing with the ratios and their equations, showing that we can use any spin level to find the velocity of another and also the importance of curvature and how that changes everything.

I think I am getting pretty close now. I'll look more into images and graphs and see if I come up with anything that will help.

.- Not trying to break your rhythm, I had to look. I didn't dress it up any. - The abstract and footer work well. Maybe insert extra return lines here or there for extra space.- Your Paper's looking professional..

I added some space around the banner image and abstract. I also got the image to scale to the size of the page it is on. It wasn't working so well on mobile phones.

I have found a javascript chart library (ChartJS) and I will look into using it to show a couple of graphs. One for the angular velocities and another for the angle velocities. They don't work well on the same graph because of the differences in values.

It is interesting that the angular velocities create an S curve. Why do they start to decelerate? Why do they approach 300,000,000 while the angle velocities just keep approaching 0? It is interesting that the value is 300,000,000 which is the speed of light in m/s and the tangential velocity being used in this equation. Now that I think about it, what it is doing is straightening out the curvature so the closer it gets to the tangential velocity, the straighter the curve is. My suggestion is that somewhere on one of those curves is where we can't add any more stacked spins. It curves up at around 20 spin levels, which I have calculated as the proton area but am unsure if that is correct or not as it conflicts with some of Miles work, and curves back at around 32 levels.

Remember that these are relative numbers, starting at 1, not the size of a BPhoton.

But if we look at level 33 we find:

Level 33: r = 2^33 = 8,589,934,592

Why do I want that number? Because Miles has shown that the BPhoton is G times smaller than the proton. G = 6.67x10^-11 which, when inverted, give us just below 16 billion. If we go to level 34, we get to over 17 billion and that is too far, but we can assume a proton smaller than that and its charge field takes up the rest of the space.

Yes, I saw that later. This is caused by the 2^N equation I was using as it starts at 0 rather than 1.

However, I have realised that the levels aren't exactly what they look like anyway. You see, it is the value that is causing that curve change, not the level. I created a graph using the above data up to 40 levels and the curves were around 20 - 34. I then changed the radius to that of the BPhoton and the curves were nowhere to be seen. At this point I thought that my paper was in trouble because it meant that there were limits to what I had found. It was still useful, as long as you adhered to those limits. I then extended the graph out to 120 values and the curves returned. This showed me that it was the actual value of the radius that caused the changes.

This was a good thing for my paper, as it meant those limits were a long way above what we need for stacked spins. However, it was a blow to my connection between those curves and the size of a proton. There might be a connection between stacked spins and planetary orbits though. The radius is very large at those curves but I haven't looked closely enough to speculate at the moment. It requires more study but I will drop this idea from my paper. I will show these graphs though, all of them, but I will do that to show the limits of the relationships and maybe do another paper later if I find something in my research.

Miles' paper includes a quote I've used before in the pi=4 discussion.

ω = √[2r√v2 + r2) - 2r2] r = √[ω4/(4v2 - 4ω2)]

Not as simple as the current equation, but much more logical. Instead of strange scaling, we get a logical progression. As r gets larger, the angular velocity approaches the tangential velocity. This is because with larger objects, the curve loses curvature, becoming more like the straight line. With smaller objects, the curvature increases, and the angular velocity may become a small fraction of the tangential velocity.

You are expanding our appreciation of the angular velocity equation, and hinting at expanding your understanding of the radius equation as well - astronomical orbits?! what a cliff-hanger. We're all enjoying your efforts and I'm even understanding most of it.

I've re-read Spin Velocity yet again. I don't see any errors. Your descriptions are clear, even including instructions in order to perform transformations. Thanks for including us in the process..

Include you guys? Of course. I wouldn't have written the paper if it wasn't for everyone here. I wouldn't even have a website as I set that up to share my work with all of you. It is me that should be, and am, thanking you. All of you. I really can't thank you enough. Would a mention in my Nobel acceptance speech be enough? Yeah, that'll happen! Well, the thank you certainly would but I don't see any awards in my future! Luckily, that's not why I do this.

OK, enough of this mushy stuff , back to work.

When using the BPhoton radius, which I can't remember the exact figure of at the moment so I am using 2.34E-24 which is pretty close, and looking to 9 decimal places, the √2 relationship doesn't change until we reach 1m. I don't remember the specifics, but Miles has mentioned how everything changes around the 1m mark. He was discussing how quantum particles need to spin but planets and moons need to orbit, and how there is a zone of stability around the meter, the scale that we exist at. We don't need to spin or orbit but smaller things needs to spin and larger things need to orbit so that they can find stability. Maybe the reason for that is wrapped up in this equation.

The whole angular velocity equation breaks down once the angular velocity equals the tangential velocity. We should expect this because to be equal means the curvature has been straightened out. This occurs at a radius around 3.11E+12m. That is about half a million times the radius of the earth. Of course, planets and moons don't travel at c, so this might be leading me to some wrong conclusions. Linking orbits was just a guess based on the size of the radius but it is still worth looking at. I now suspect that it will be a different kind of study. I will need to reduce the tangential velocity where-as I am keeping it constant in this paper.

In the mean-time though, I will work on those graphs and write some words around them, studying the limits of the relationships I have found. At this stage, I don't think the limits apply to the transforms themselves, only the relationships between spin levels which are kind of a short cut around the transforms. As such, they are always inferior to the actual path.